QWhy has MIL not responded to the numerous negative comments made on the Internet?AMost comments we have reviewed, are either dishonest or trolling. For reasons of privacy and fairness, we do not routinely comment publicly about live cases or judgments granted by Court. The MIL website has links to free advice services allowing people with a genuine grievance or dispute to obtain free independent advice and support. Fee charging legal service providers can be checked on the SRA website to ensure they are regulated and indemnified to offer legal services to the public.

The Prankster has not been able to identify comments which are dishonest or trolling, so wonders if MIL are using a different internet to everyone else.

It appears in the real world, as opposed to the parallel universe Mr G Watson seems to inhabit, MIL are very much aware that they have little chance of succeeding in court.

Although MIL claim to have been told by the BPA and IPC that thousands of claims are won in court hearings, this appears to be made up data. The BMPA data suggests that only around 2,000 parking hearing occurred in 2016. Of course, MIL will have their own statistics apart from the data they claim the BPA and IPC provide. The Prankster suggests that they are not publishing that due to their embarrassing lack of success.

Does anyone know how case numbers are allocated? What are the odds of two cases in different courts having sequential numbers? C9QZ5F92 and C9QZ5F93.It also makes me laugh that MIL seem to think that Generic or Template defences are problematic but template claims are perfectly acceptable.

Indeed. As I understand it efforts are made to respond to specific points raised in their claims whilst their witness statements simply plough the same, tired old furrows without ever providing "strict proof". One is tempted to think that they don't actually have it or perhaps they don't care?

This all highlights the MO, robo claims, no effort, hope for default wins or a cave in at mediation where many defendants don't understand the mediators sole aim is to prevent a court case and they really don't care for the facts of the case at all, they have to proceed enough to court for the threat to have teeth, but probably don't want to at all unless they know it's a rubbish defence.

There seems to be a number of signatures around that are questionable? Does Mr G Watson really exist? Its rare to see such a legible signature, as most people personalise their monicker? Unless he sits opposite Mr Sherlock perhaps?

Having just come off the phone to MIL (I know, I know, but I like to live dangerously), I can confirm that mr G Watson does not exist. I asked the call handler if I could speak to him, and she sounded very confused, and said she knew of nobody of that name. I asked for Alan, but he was in a meeting.

So their generic/template defence rebuttal is also a generic and templated response....

I got some advice from this and other forums after being hounded by MIL collections.They had bought the 'debt' from a Blackpool company I accepted mediation but told them I would see them in court. After a lot of written bluster and a couple of reduced offers from MIL they eventually withdrew,My advice would be 'do not let them win' they prey on vulnerable people who believe their legal gobbledegook

About Me

The Parking Prankster is dedicated to putting the fun back into parking. Sometimes there is a serious side too, as the prankster highlights scams and ruses used by the darker side of the parking industry to part you from your money.
Please contact me with parking stories you think would make interesting blog posts either via email prankster@parking-prankster.com or my twitter feed, @ParkingPranks